Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Sunday, May 27, 2007 | Science : Archaeology | print version Print | Comments

Document It came like yesterday

by The Economist

Thanks to Ivan Bailey for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9217806

The first human inhabitants of North America may not have exterminated the mammoths. The culprit might have been a comet

mammoth

ARCHAEOLOGISTS know little of what life was like for the first people in America. One thing they thought they knew, however, was that these people hunted mammoths and other large mammals until none was left. Once that had happened, they disappeared themselves.

But the Clovis people of 13,000 years ago, named after the place their characteristic arrowheads and spear-points were first found, may not be a bell-tolling example of the danger of technological progress after all. They may have gone, along with mammoths, short-headed bears, ground sloths and camels, because a comet exploded over their heads.

If that were true, North America would have suffered the first world-changing impact of an extraterrestrial object in the era of modern man. And because it happened so recently—"like yesterday" in the words of James Kennett of the University of California, Santa Barbara—any amateur-archaeologist could inspect the evidence for himself by digging deep enough. In many places in the United States and Canada, at a depth corresponding to 12,900 years ago, a few centimetres of charcoal will appear. This, according to Dr Kennett, is the product of wildfires that spanned the continent after an object roughly a kilometre across grazed the Earth, broke up into ever smaller pieces and deposited all of its oomph as heat into the atmosphere.

Mixed in with the charcoal, as Dr Kennett and a number of his colleagues reported to a meeting of the American Geophysical Union in Acapulco this week, are other bits that point to such an impact. There are glass-like beads made of carbon. To melt carbon requires a temperature of around 4,000°C. Such heat is hard to come by on Earth. And only this month it was discovered, by looking at the beads in an electron microscope, that they are chock full of diamonds a micron or less across. Finding the temperature and pressure to create such diamonds on the surface of the Earth would be impossible, unless a huge hammer-blow from space is meted out.

Something the researchers have not found in this layer is iridium, or at least not a lot of it. This metal is the fingerprint, the world over, of the impact some 65m years ago of an asteroid, in what is now Mexico. That collision caused the demise of the dinosaurs. A lack of iridium is the reason Dr Kennett and his colleagues think the collision they believe they have discovered was with a comet rather than an asteroid. Comets consist of "dirty ice", rather than solid rock, and so contain little iridium.

That something big happened around 13,000 years ago was already known. Palaeontologists have a name for the sudden cooling of the climate of the northern hemisphere that started right then and lasted for over a thousand years. They call it the Younger Dryas.

Before the Younger Dryas, the world had been warming up as the last ice age came to an end. It was this warming that gave the Clovis people and their prey a chance to thrive. But as for the cause of the Younger Dryas, the eyes of science were, until now, directed not up at the sky, but down into the ocean.

Dr Kennett himself contributed to the body of work that suggests changing ocean currents caused the cooling. There is evidence that currents which bring warm water from the tropics to the Arctic, as the Gulf Stream does now, can be pushed around. Dr Kennett worked on the idea that at the start of the Younger Dryas a huge lake of fresh water suddenly breached a wall of ice that had confined it, and flowed into the northern Atlantic Ocean. That would have altered the heat- and salinity-driven dynamics of the area rapidly, stopping the warm current from travelling so far north.

Current thinking
According to Dr Kennett, the essence of this hypothesis is compatible with the cause of the change being an impact. The heat from the impact would have melted a lot of ice, releasing fresh water. So, by way of the ocean currents, the impact would initiate a long-term cooling. This would be in addition to a much less theoretical short-term cooling caused by smoke from the fires and dust thrown into the atmosphere by the impact. It would also explain why the lake required by the original hypothesis has not yet been located.

Once you look at the history of life around 13,000 years ago, things start coming together. Not all large mammals died out. Bison, for instance, kept roaming the plains of America. But Dr Kennett notes that present-day bison are not like the ones the Clovis people hunted. They are smaller—and they are remarkably alike in their genetic make-up. This suggests that all present-day bison are descended from a very small group of animals. According to the clock that ticks off the increase in diversity of the DNA of a group of animals due to the accumulation of random mutations, this "population bottleneck" occurred at the beginning of the Younger Dryas.

Of course, that might just mean that the Clovis people had not quite exterminated bison before they, themselves, disappeared. But if that were true, it would suggest that the Clovis culture vanished suddenly—which raises the question, why?

Dr Kennett suggests two approaches to answering this question. One is to look for evidence of population bottlenecks in other species, especially animals that were not hunted by the Clovis people. If found, such bottlenecks would indicate an external shock to the ecosystem. The other is to examine in detail the archaeological record just above the charcoal layer.

The successor of the Clovis culture, the Folsom culture, is also defined by its arrowheads. So far it has been impossible to decide if these arrowheads were the tools of new people from Asia who replaced their dead cousins, or of a remnant of Clovis people who changed their technology and survived. Now that it seems likely a comet has drawn a sharp line of charcoal between the two cultures, careful measurements should be able to show whether North America was, for a few centuries after the impact, as bereft of people as it has since been of mammoths.

Comments 1 - 29 of 29 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #45347 by Rtambree on May 27, 2007 at 9:18 am

Hmmm... when humans got to most previously uninhabited places, mass extinctions of large fauna followed, not just in North America, but in Australia, New Zealand and Pacific Islands.

These events didn't all coincide with extraterrestrial impacts - the Aborigines got to Australia 40,000+ years ago and the Maoris got to New Zealand only about 1,000 years ago.

So the original conclusion about the Clovis people seems reasonable. Human are humans are humans - no one group is innately enlightened or regressive in terms of environmental foresight compared to another group.

Other Comments by Rtambree

2. Comment #45356 by Quetzalcoatl on May 27, 2007 at 10:58 am

 avatarBut by the same token, it's very easy to blame a lot of things on human activity. This happens a lot, especially by environmental groups that have their own agendas to push. I must admit, though, I know very little about this particular event, so I'll keep an eye open for more news.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

3. Comment #45360 by arildno on May 27, 2007 at 11:27 am

Now, it sounds dreadfully ominous about "own agendas to push".
Care to make that into a reasonable accusation?

Other Comments by arildno

4. Comment #45361 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 27, 2007 at 11:27 am

 avatarEvery time I read something like this, I think of the trillion dollars that are collectivley spent on arms to point at each other. When the real danger is barrelling in from the enveloping darkness of space.

Somewhere out there is comet with "Destination : Terra" stamped on it. I just hope to Christ, or indeed any God who'll listen, that we are ready when that fucker hoves into view:-(

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

5. Comment #45366 by Homo economicus on May 27, 2007 at 12:01 pm

 avatarMind you irony if war has helped us to develop the weapons to save us from a comet casuing extinction.

Now if we can just come up with something to survive the sun imploding ....

Other Comments by Homo economicus

6. Comment #45367 by Quetzalcoatl on May 27, 2007 at 12:05 pm

 avatar
Now, it sounds dreadfully ominous about "own agendas to push".
Care to make that into a reasonable accusation?


Not really. It was a general statement. All I meant is that some people find it very easy to blame humans for problems because there's a lot they don't like about the society they live in.

Brian makes a good point. That alone is an argument for humanity expanding into space, to solve the "eggs in one basket" issue. Or at the very least, having some decent telescopes that can spot comets far enough away to do something about it.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

7. Comment #45368 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 27, 2007 at 12:11 pm

 avatarNow if we can just come up with something to survive the sun imploding ....

Don't forget black holes, or a local star going supernova. Asteroid comet impacts are childs play in comparison.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

8. Comment #45369 by steve99 on May 27, 2007 at 12:26 pm

 avatarbrian: You are right. There was lots of talk about 'armageddon' and 'destroying the world' during the cold war, but the truth is that our nuclear weapons would have had little long-term impact on life on earth, even if they all had been set off at once. Given a couple of centuries, even the human population would have recovered. The real danger is from nature. The energies involved in comet or asteroid impacts are almost unbelievable. A smallish object of around 1km diameter would release an energy of 300 gigatonnes - 10 times the explosive power of all nuclear weapons that existed at the height of the cold war.

Other Comments by steve99

9. Comment #45370 by Quetzalcoatl on May 27, 2007 at 12:37 pm

 avatar
Don't forget black holes, or a local star going supernova. Asteroid comet impacts are childs play in comparison.


True, but with those two most things in the solar system would be pretty much screwed. A local supernova would also kill any nearby colonies in other systems. Not to mention gamma ray bursters, that can sterilise hundreds of light-years.

This is one of the best, and most overlooked, arguments against the existence of a deity. The Universe is just too bleeding hostile.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

10. Comment #45372 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 27, 2007 at 12:45 pm

 avatarTrue, but with those two most things in the solar system would be pretty much screwed.

Exactly my point, here we are muddling about, killing each other, arguing about religion! When we should be busting our ass to get out THERE.

Eggs in one basket indeed. More like a single egg, the only egg ever laid, being brought to market on the back of an enraged blind bull with parkinsons and three peg legs. We need to get our shit together.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

11. Comment #45385 by D'Arcy on May 27, 2007 at 2:04 pm

 avatarHell the last 2 messages have really cheered me up! Brian is right of course that we have to get our shit together. Taking a leaf from TGD and moral dilemmas, if the approaching comet (forget supa novas for sake of argument), could be diverted from wiping out most of humanity to destroying the Biologic Institute, the choice wouldn't be all that difficult.

Other Comments by D'Arcy

12. Comment #45388 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 27, 2007 at 2:13 pm

 avatarOTOH, I can also imagine killing off entire extraterrestrial ecosystems by such a project. We seem rather adept at that enterprise, locally.


I am absolutely a species purist, terra for the terrans!!! Our galaxy first!!! Kind of guy:-) The universe is a big place, lets even up the odds before we get too hung up on the what ifs and maybes.

We may be the only sentient animal in the universe, and we might not be. I say lets assume we are and proceed from there.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

13. Comment #45398 by pewkatchoo on May 27, 2007 at 2:55 pm

 avatarBrian, do you actively look for things to worry about. You seem to have an unhealthy obsession with global catastrophe. Go and have a nice cup of tea.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

14. Comment #45421 by Damien White on May 27, 2007 at 5:12 pm

Many years ago, I became interested in the theory of Atlantis, and decided to find out whether it may have been possible (the evidence presented by Jurgen Spanuth in his book 'Atlantis Of The North' seemed to me to be the most credible in the end, but that's beside the point i'm trying to make here). My point is that this 'new' theory of extinction 13000 years ago by meteor impact in North America was loudly propogated by Professor Otto Muck way back in the 60s. He was ridiculed then. Pity no-one remembers him now.

Other Comments by Damien White

15. Comment #45422 by MorituriMax on May 27, 2007 at 5:17 pm

 avatarFunny, people used to think we were the end-all be-all of evolution, put here by God and that we were the best thing in the universe. That went along with saying that the Earth had to be the center of the universe because we were on it.

Then science came along and said "Hey, we're not special. We aren't the center of everything. Everything doesn't revolve around us." And some people were humbled.

Then along come the environmentalists and say "Hey! We're special. We can change the climate of an entire planet as a byproduct of some of our activities. We alone do more to the climate than the energy output of a star hitting us for billions of years. Solar Flares? Comets? Volcanoes? Meteors? Plate Tectonics? Nah. We got all of those beat."

Amazing how humble we aren't anymore.

Other Comments by MorituriMax

16. Comment #45446 by FVThinker on May 27, 2007 at 8:02 pm

Is it just, or does anyone else seem to think a herculean effort for the sole purpose of propagating our species seem rather . . . I dunno . . . conceited? If we are the insignificant life form that we here think we are, I don't see the great import of colonizing other planets.

On the other hand, if, in our quest to gain answers about our selves and our universe, we happen to gain the knowledge that makes it sensible and desireable to colonize, well then that makes sense to me.

Propagation for propagation's sake . . . I don't really get it. . . . (unless we are protecting our divine sole bequeathed to us as our loving, compassionate creator)

Other Comments by FVThinker

17. Comment #45450 by MelM on May 27, 2007 at 8:41 pm

What I worry about is some new super oxygen-eating microbe or some such basic evolution of the Earth or life. But, theocracy is a lot closer so I really don't have time to dwell on doing without a molten Earth's core or other basic disasters.

Other Comments by MelM

18. Comment #45451 by MorituriMax on May 27, 2007 at 9:11 pm

 avatarFVThinker.. then why are you continuing to breathe? Shouldn't you just go out and remove yourself from the species then? Heh, kidding..

If you think it is conceited, then sure, but every other species on the planet shares that trait. Anything alive today is here because they spent the entire time since they've been around trying to "propogate" the species.. hell, Stars do it too. They blow up, new better stars form with heavier elements.

You have to be around to do anything else, so I would say, anything after that is cake. As for divine creators, the only ones I recognize are my Mom and Dad.

Oh, and I don't think I am insignificant. The universe may think so, but that is it's prerogative.


Other Comments by MorituriMax

19. Comment #45455 by FVThinker on May 27, 2007 at 9:22 pm

As I say to some when engaged in "meaning of life" discussions, I tell them that we (as a species) are meaningless, insignificant specs in this universe . . . by my son, most assuredly, is not.

Some get my point; most do not. I would be curious how many of you might get it's meaning.

Other Comments by FVThinker

20. Comment #45458 by MelM on May 27, 2007 at 10:04 pm

Damn, I hate that "Blue Dot" crap. Being "significant" implies a life with awareness and values. There's no way I can be "significant" to a rock or a star or a galaxy or a group of galaxies. (I guess these folks might have a little respect for humans if we were the size of a galactic group.) And, why should I be significant to some intellegent being in some other galaxy? The concept of "insignificant" is being used out of all context to denigrate humans. What an ugly thing to do!!! Why? Could it be that people with no respect for themselves are easier to rule? Or what? I think that people who hate people call people "insignificant." "People who hate people" would be a good topic for another blog site.

People are wonderful and have a fantastic future as soon as they throw off irrationalism--including religion. I won't be here to share in that day but I have lived in a space of time where I can at least grasp that the future will be far far better than the past. We will learn how to use our minds and pull completely away from this religious nightmare era of history.

Other Comments by MelM

21. Comment #45461 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 27, 2007 at 10:57 pm

 avatar21. Comment #45455 by FVThinker on May 27, 2007 at 9:22 pm

As I say to some when engaged in "meaning of life" discussions, I tell them that we (as a species) are meaningless, insignificant specs in this universe . . . by my son, most assuredly, is not.


It's clear enough, to clear thinkers:-)

In the greater scheme of things, a tiny planet, sorrounding a modest star in an unfashionable (nod to hitch hikers guide) spiral arm of an obscure galaxy, is insignificant. If the entire solar system were vaporised tomorrow, it would have as much effect on the universe as me brushing a speck of dust off my clothes.

That said, everyone of us is vitally important to us, and a few other individuals, and thats enough. Or it had better be, it's all there is:-)

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

22. Comment #45462 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 27, 2007 at 11:02 pm

 avatarThen science came along and said "Hey, we're not special. We aren't the center of everything. Everything doesn't revolve around us." And some people were humbled.

Then along come the environmentalists and say "Hey! We're special. We can change the climate of an entire planet as a byproduct of some of our activities. We alone do more to the climate than the energy output of a star hitting us for billions of years. Solar Flares? Comets? Volcanoes? Meteors? Plate Tectonics? Nah. We got all of those beat."


Actually science is paradoxically responsible for both conclusions. Your post sounds a little like you think some wacky hippies just made the environmental stuff up.

Some people actually are deluded about these problems, so it's important for atheists, being supporters of science to get our story straight. I'm sure you understand:-)

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

23. Comment #45510 by Laurence Winch-Furness on May 28, 2007 at 3:32 am

 avatar"Now if we can just come up with something to survive the sun imploding ...."

Don't think we'll be alive that long, not because we're inherently self-destructive (although that's true as well) but just because no species has survived for more than a couple of million years, and while we may last longer, if we expand our rescource base beyond the solar system I strongly dobt if we could last anything like as long as a billion years (the time it takes for the earth to become uninhabitable) thus the expansion, followed by the implosion of the sun is unlikely to trouble us.

Other Comments by Laurence Winch-Furness

24. Comment #45519 by LeeC on May 28, 2007 at 4:00 am

 avatarThis is a happy thread I've walked on to...

I thought it was the only the theist who stands on street corners shouting "The End Of The World Nigh"...

Just keep watching the skies!!!

http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/

Just don't let Bush shoot them down with his Nukes… the cowboy probably would try – he's seen it in the movies.

Other Comments by LeeC

25. Comment #45566 by ghostbuster on May 28, 2007 at 8:23 am

All goes to show you that the universe doesn't give a fat rat's ass whether we are here or not. Newest theories have the universe as eternal past and future, so life, wherever it is goes on with or without us; we had better be concerned about our own survival and what we do or don't do to this planet because nobody "up there" is rooting for us friends.
And if we are not intelligent enough to keep our own nest clean, then we do not deserve to go anywhere else mucking around. We can and perhaps are likely to be our own asteroid.
Nobody cares but us. And even most of "us" don't care.

Other Comments by ghostbuster

26. Comment #45568 by MorituriMax on May 28, 2007 at 8:43 am

 avatarGood points all around, was thinking that everything is insignificant to everything else. If we're insignificant to the universe, then so are bacteria, planets, stars, galaxies, superclusters, everything scales up. And if you scale down, everything... EVERYTHING is particles. At our scale, the middle world I think I have heard it called, we perceive structure.

But it's an illusion. Aren't we in fact made up of the material of the star that gave birth to our star? We're just as significant as hydrogen, helium, nitrogen. As significant as the 130 or so types of molecules drifting around space.

So am I humbled? Yes, but only by the diversity of reality which is based on particles.

Other Comments by MorituriMax

27. Comment #45578 by eno on May 28, 2007 at 9:33 am

Interesting stuff. Jared Diamond's 'Guns, Germs and Steel' gives a fascinating insight into early humans. Worth checking out.

Other Comments by eno

28. Comment #45583 by steve99 on May 28, 2007 at 10:10 am

 avatar
This is a happy thread I've walked on to...


Let me try and cheer it up a bit!

There is very little we could do to wipe even ourselves out. There have been mass extinctions in the past, but the species that have survived have been those that can survive almost anywhere on the planet. That includes us. Even if we develop some nasty disease, and all but a few thousand (perhaps in some isolated area) survive, that would only set back the development of mankind for a few millenia. On a timescale of millions of years, you would hardly notice.

As for the belief that we aren't special and can't do more than supervolcanoes and asteroids. Well, I'll start with the second point first. Sure - we can't (yet) mess things up that quickly (a matter of a few minutes or days), but that does not mean we can't have a major influence on the planet. We certainly can't wipe out most life, but most of us live in finely balanced enviromnents. Just a little shift in the environment would be disastrous.

As for us not being special. Of course we are! The universe revolves around us, but if you consider complexity and intelligence significant then we are possibly one of the most interesting things in this cosmos. For all we know, we could be the only technological culture. This should be a major inspiration to people, I am stunned by the defeatist 'we are only going to kill ourselves, and we are not worth it' attitudes I hear. We are probably not going to be around for millions of years, at least not in the form we are now. Almost certainly technology and genetic engineering will change us dramatically. What is likely is that millions, even billions of years in the future our decendants will be around, in some form or another, and they will remember us. I like the comment of Martin Rees reacting to discussions of how humans would survive the end of the sun in 6-7 billion years - he said that it was silly to talk about 'humans' - there will be something around then, but it will be a different from us as we are from bacteria.

Anyway, in decades rather than centuries we will have colonies off-world, almost certainly taking Earth-life with us. That will become one of the most important developments ever in the history of life, because after that, even the colonisation of the stars is relatively easy (just scoop out an asteroid, terraform it, wait a few centuries until it feels like home, then throw in a nuclear or fusion power generator, and slingshot it out of the solar system. The colonists won't care about a journey of centuries - why would they - from their point of view they are staying at home).

Other Comments by steve99

29. Comment #45663 by BT Murtagh on May 28, 2007 at 7:48 pm

 avatarSpatially and effectually we are insignificant on the scale of the cosmos; however, we don't live on the scale of the cosmos. We live on the human scale, and on the human scale we matter deeply.

Despite all our flaws, sometimes maybe even because of them, I like people. They're my species, after all; it'd be surprising if I didn't. I'm in favour of any project which increases our probable survival time. I think it dreadfully wrong-headed to simply accept the prospect of our own demise, merely because we are already insignificant on the scale of galaxies - or the scale of atoms, for that matter.

I am therefore a fervent supporter of space exploration for that reason alone, quite apart from the prospect of all the wonderfully interesting information that's bound to come our way as we move outward.

The cosmos doesn't care about us particularly, it's true, but by the same token the cosmos won't mind a bit if we make ourselves at home in a larger portion of it.

Other Comments by BT Murtagh
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: